“Normal” Driving as Reasonable Suspicion for Traffic Stop in North Carolina

A 2012 North Carolina Court of Appeals case addressed the issue of “normal” driving in connection with its analysis to determine whether the officer who stopped the defendant for impaired driving had reasonable suspicion to make that stop. Although certain driving patterns can be considered “normal,” this cannot be the only factor considered when determining whether a stop is justified by reasonable suspicion.

In State v. Osterhoudt, the officer who stopped the defendant saw him make a “wide right turn” where “half of defendant’s car went over the double yellow line into the turning lane for traffic coming in the opposite direction.” The street onto which the defendant was turning was described as a three-lane road with one lane for traffic going in the direction the defendant was going and two lanes going in the opposite direction – one lane was a regular lane and the other lane was a left turn lane. The officer stopped the defendant for crossing the double yellow line and what the officer thought was a violation of G.S. 20-146(a). The defendant was then arrested for DWI.

G.S. 20-146(a) states that

Upon all highways of sufficient width a vehicle shall be driven upon the right half of the highway except as follows:

(1) When overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction under the rules governing such movement;

(2) When an obstruction exists making it necessary to drive to the left of the center of the highway; provided, any person so doing shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles traveling in the proper direction upon the unobstructed portion of the highway within such distance as to constitute an immediate hazard;

(3) Upon a highway divided into three marked lanes for traffic under the rules applicable thereon; or

(4) Upon a highway designated and signposted for one-way traffic.

At trial, the court determined that the defendant did not violate G.S. 20-146(a) because the statute did not require a vehicle to be driven on the right half of a highway which was divided into three lanes and the road onto which the defendant was turning was divided into three lanes. The trial court concluded the following:

That it is not a violation of the General Statutes for a vehicle to cross the double yellow line separating the turn lane from the straight lane at this particular intersection while making a right turn so long as the vehicle does not cross the centerpoint of the roadway, and such turn is made in safety and no traffic is affected.

That this driving falls within a normal pattern of driving behavior, and the Trooper’s observations do not constitute a reasonable articulable suspicion that any crime has occurred or is occurring.

The State appealed to the court of appeals, which agreed with the trial court’s analysis that the defendant did not violate G.S. 20-146(a). However, the court of appeals concluded that the defendant violated two other statutory provisions: G.S. 20-146(d) and G.S. 20-153(a).

G.S. 20-146(d) states that

Whenever any street has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic, the following rules in addition to all others consistent herewith shall apply.

(1) A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from such lane until the driver has first ascertained that such movement can be made with safety.

(2) Upon a street which is divided into three or more lanes and provides for the two-way movement of traffic, a vehicle shall not be driven in the center lane except when overtaking and passing another vehicle traveling in the same direction when such center lane is clear of traffic within a safe distance, or in the preparation for making a left turn or where such center lane is at the time allocated exclusively to traffic moving in the same direction that the vehicle is proceeding and such allocation is designated by official traffic-control device.

(3) Official traffic-control devices may be erected directing specified traffic to use a designated lane or designating those lanes to be used by traffic moving in a particular direction regardless of the center of the street and drivers of vehicles shall obey the direction of every such device.

(4) Official traffic-control devices may be installed prohibiting the changing of lanes on sections of streets, and drivers of vehicles shall obey the directions of every such device.

The court concluded that by making a wide right turn the defendant violated subsection (1) because he failed to stay within his lane and subsections (3) and (4) because he failed to obey the yellow line markings on the street.

G.S. 20-153(a) states that

Both the approach for a right turn and a right turn shall be made as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.

By making a wide right turn, the defendant did not keep as close as practicable to the curb and violated G.S. 20-153(a).

Because the officer stopped the defendant for crossing the double yellow line, which violated the above provisions, it did not matter that the officer wrongly believed the defendant violated G.S. 20-146(a) when he stopped the defendant. Therefore, the court concluded that the officer’s stop of the defendant was reasonable.

In its opinion, the court of appeals also addressed the trial court’s conclusion finding that the defendant’s driving fell “within a normal pattern of driving behavior.” The court of appeals acknowledged that they had in the past “classified a defendant’s driving as normal when looking at the totality of the circumstances” but that the classification of driving as “normal” “has never been the only objective factor we have examined to determine whether a police officer has reasonable articulable suspicion.” The court faulted the trial court for not looking “beyond whether defendant’s driving was normal in order to determine whether [the officer] had reasonable suspicion.”

This analysis makes sense considering that the court determined that the defendant actually did violate a statute. We cannot assume that just because a large number of people disregard a traffic law, then a person cannot be stopped for this violation because it is “normal” to disregard the traffic law.

However, we can imagine that there are some right hand turns for which a car, especially a bigger car, might have to cross the yellow line marking, especially if that line creates a narrow lane to turn into. This seems to be what the trial court was addressing in its finding

That it is not a violation of the General Statutes for a vehicle to cross the double yellow line separating the turn lane from the straight lane at this particular intersection while making a right turn so long as the vehicle does not cross the centerpoint of the roadway, and such turn is made in safety and no traffic is affected.

The court of appeals noted that the officer “testified that there was nothing in the roadway that would cause defendant to make a wide turn to avoid hitting something.” However, if the defendant had presented evidence that the turn was especially sharp and the lane was especially narrow, and that he had “first ascertained that such movement can be made with safety,” then it is arguable that the defendant would not have violated the statutes.

If you have been charged with impaired driving, contact Rosensteel Fleishman, PLLC (704) 714-1450, to speak with an attorney about your options.

I can not say enough about this law firm. They were very professional but had a way of making you feel like you were their only case. They worked so hard for us, kept us informed at all times and we are very pleased with the outcome. Cory was so helpful and straight to the point. Isaac is so professional, polite and works harder than anyone I know. He was always on top of everything and his knowledge on everything about our case was incredible! I highly recommend them and their services!

Kevin Hughes

00:14 31 May 18

I highly recommend this Firm. Cory and Issac were always extremely professional and frequently went above and beyond the call of duty. They worked diligently, always responded quickly and answered my unending questions with grace and patience. I wouldn't hesitate to reach out to them again if I needed legal advice/counsel.

anim reyna

15:01 29 Mar 18

Highly recommended!! I worked with both Corey and Mathew and they are both EXCELLENT attorneys! Delma and Issac the paralegals that work in the office are beyond great! I would recommend this law office to any of my family members, friends and even strangers! I brought two cases to them(one was on going for almost two years) and they worked it all out for me and I was very satisfied with the results and would return back to them

Marissa Jackson

15:27 16 Mar 18

I am grateful to have worked with Cory Rosensteel and his team, I personally worked with Isaac Barker. A great team that really helped me understand and answer any questions I had along he way. Very happy with the way the case settled thanks to them. Will definitely be recommending them to anyone looking for great team.

Adero Burbridge

14:55 29 Apr 18

Rosensteel Fleishman was recommended to us to help with an auto accident. Our attorney Matt Fleishman and his paralegal were very professional and patient when aiding my elderly parents with their situation. Throughout the process, they were always available and kept us abreast of what was happening with the case. I would and have recommended them to friends and family.

Kimberly Morrison

10:45 19 Jun 18

Corey Fleishman and his staff are fantastic. Calls, emails and any questions you have are returned promptly. Every aspect of my case was explained thoroughly to me. I highly recommend this law firm to anyone who has been in an accident. Luis was always patient and informative. Great job on mine and my children's settlement. I HOPE to never have to go thru this process again, but if I do....Rosensteel and Fleishman will get the first call.. Great job everyone!

David Glassman

02:06 17 Jul 18

Excellent communication and customer service. Cory was very easy to talk to each step of the way. Isaac was amazing to work with. He answered every question I had along the way as well. I would highly recommend this firm.

zohaib rizvi

17:00 23 Jul 18

I cannot recommend this law firm highly enough. I am very much satisfied with the way the case settled. Paralegal, Luis, had always kept me updated on my case and at every stage of my case, Mathew thoroughly explained the options and let me take the informed decision; and answered all my questions througout the case as well. Very happy with the settlement, Thanks to Matthew and team. Highly recommended law firm.

Amanda Krawiec

21:10 21 Aug 18

HIGHLY RECOMMEND! My husband was in a car totaling crash where he sustained neck & back injuries as well as a concussion that caused months of issues. The person who hit him did not have insurance. I can’t explain the hell we went through before we found Matt Fleishman and Issac Barker. It was a tricky situation and without their legal help and expertise we would have had even more headache(then he was already experiencing). They knew exactly what steps to take and handled all his dr bills as well as recommended great drs. Issac personally called just to check on us, some of those calls I spent crying to him as a wife seeing her husband suffer. Thankfully my husband recovered and we were able to get our case settled to our liking. If you want results, expert legal advice & kind people handling your troubles I would go here!!! Thank you so much for all the time you put into handling every piece of this horrible experience so we didn’t have to! I can firmly say they went above and beyond!

Shaquille Clary

19:43 09 Sep 18

I had an an amazing experience with the Fleishman group. Tiffany and Luis were excellent and very helpful with my experience. They upheld the highest professionalism at all times and made it a top priority that my case be handled expeditiously. My attorney Corey Rosensteel is an seasoned professional and will take care of your every need. I will use the same team in the future and I recommend them to anyone in need of attorney services. Thanks guys!!!

Nicole Loor

19:35 26 Sep 18

Highly recommend. Very professional and am very happy with everything they did for me!

K. L. Suess

00:28 09 Nov 18

HIGHLY RECOMMEND... Worked with Attorney Matthew Fleishman and Isaac Barker - both are professional, helpful and knowledgeable. Definitely feel they look out for the best interest of their client(s).